I have recently been watching the Senate finance committee examine Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. They are very slow at it because Liberal Senators do not like the bill. Liberal MPs didn’t like the bill either but they received instructions from their leader Michael Ignatieff not to stall the bill. Liberal Senators are known for not following their leader. For example, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny recently wrote an op-ed in which he defended CSIS chief Richard Fadden about his espionage allegations and actually appeared to contradict his party’s message on this issue when he said “Fadden did Canadians a service by pointing out that too many Canadian politicians are effectively on other countries' dole.” That is a clear contradiction of the Liberal position that Fadden’s allegations are unfounded.
So it is evident that Liberal Senators have a tendency not to follow the party line. As a result there are a number of Liberal Senators who actively wanted Bill C-9 to be split into multiple bills and studied individually. They were disregarding the fact that a parliamentary crisis would ensue if they succeeded in doing this. Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray also wanted to break up the bill. Murray considers this bill an affront to parliament. I wouldn’t go that far but putting so much budget-unrelated content into a budget bill is very questionable.
During the committee meeting Ned Franks said in relation to the confidence issue of Bill C-9 that numerous financial bills have been defeated in the past in Canadian parliament and the government did not fall. Now Ned Franks is a parliamentary expert and knows in detail all the legislative history of Canada’s parliament all the way back to Confederation. But I found that comment odd. Most of those years he has studied had majority governments in which financial bills are never defeated. And my impression is that in the case of minority parliaments, if a financial bill is defeated then in most cases the government falls. My impression is that only if the bill does not meet the criteria as being “supply” would the government not fall if the bill were defeated. “Loss of supply” is an undisputed loss of confidence when it occurs. There was a case in 1967 when a financial bill the Liberal minority government introduced was defeated because it did not have support of any other party in the House of Commons. Prime Minister Lester Pearson was out of the country when the bill was defeated and there were serious questions at the time about whether the government had fallen or not when the bill was defeated. The government declared it was not a matter of confidence and continued governing and an election was not called until 1968. But this must surely be the exception and not the rule. The Liberals were defeated over a budget in 1974 when it is believed they purposefully introduced a budget that the NDP could not support in order for there to be a reason to call an election in which they believed they could get a majority government. When the Trudeau government was defeated over the 1974 budget, it was clearly a loss of supply and the government fell. The Liberals only stayed in power because they won a majority government in the ensuing election. So I do not see how there has been an opportunity in Canadian parliamentary history for there to have been numerous financial bills defeated in which the government did not fall and so I am unsure what Franks was referring to. It is possible that Franks is referring to times that budget bills have been defeated in the Senate. But again I think there is limited opportunity for this to have occurred because it has been quite rare in Canadian history that one party has a majority in the House of Commons and another party has a majority in the Senate. This anomaly would have been the case throughout much of the Mulroney years but I’m quite certain no such bill was defeated by the Senate then. Another possibility that occurred to me was did such a thing happen during the Diefenbaker years? Again that does not seem likely so I am unsure as to why Franks was referring to when he made that comment about budget bills being defeated.
The funniest thing Franks said was when he referred to a bill that legislated on navigable rivers. He said that he actually prefers non-navigable rivers because he likes going white water rafting!
Showing posts with label Michael Ignatieff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Ignatieff. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Good job Michael Ignatieff
Needless to say I am thankful that the election threat has been averted but I still want to take issue with past Conservative characterizations of the previous Liberal proposal to reform Employment Insurance. Tories classified the Liberal suggestion as a “socialist scheme” but that is something I would take issue with. I know of a previous Conservative government who enriched Unemployment Insurance – the government of John Diefenbaker who extended unemployment insurance benefits due to rising unemployment around 1958. The book I have says the Diefenbaker government extended unemployment insurance benefits by 6 weeks, which is longer than the , which is longer than the 5 week extension the current Tories brought forward. My point is that Tories have enriched Employment Insurance before and could do so again and the fact that Tories have enriched unemployment insurance shows that EI enrichment is not a socialist scheme. Sure Diefenbaker was largely a Red Tory. But even Harper’s blue Toryism doesn’t prevent him from supporting farm subsidies due to his farmer base of support still desiring farm subsidies. The Conservatives have actually offered some enrichment of farm subsidies so why is enriching Employment Insurance a “socialist scheme”? And in regards to the EI deal that has been reached by Ignatieff and Harper, I disagree with the negative characterizations of it that I’m seeing in the media, especially from the National Post. National Post columnists in particular are painting Ignatieff in a very negative light with regard to this deal with Harper on EI. They say he caved in from the conditions he set on Monday morning. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At his Monday morning press conference Ignatieff made it clear that his conditions for supporting the government were not rigid demands. He said at that Monday morning press conference that he was flexible and reasonable. He demanded answers from the government on how it would get out of deficit, how it would handle the isotope crisis, how much infrastructure money has actually been spent, and what plans the government has to reform Employment Insurance. Contrary to what is implied in the negative columns about Ignatieff, Ignatieff never made it a condition that Employment Insurance reform be passed into law this week. He only asked what the governments plans to reform EI were. Contrary to what is said in the negative columns about Ignatieff, Ignatieff got all 4 of his conditions met. The government released more information about how it planned to get out of deficit. Ignatieff may also have been given more information about this in his private meetings with Harper. The government agreed to give written information about what it planned to do about the isotope crisis. That is the second condition met. Harper told Ignatieff his plans for Employment Insurance reform, which was his plan to give the self-employed access to EI. Ignatieff and Harper agreed to strike a blue-ribbon panel to study both how to implement access to EI for the self-employed and how to make other improvements to EI. The combination of those things is Ignatieff’s third condition being met. The only condition that is unclear whether it has been met is the condition that the government make it clearer how much infrastructure money has actually been spent. But I think it likely that Harper gave Ignatieff information on this during their meetings which would mean that all four conditions were met and Ignatieff did NOT back down as indicated in the many negative columns written about Ignatieff.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Yea Barack Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am overjoyed at the recent election of Democrat Barack Obama as President of the United States. Obama won all the Kerry states and also won all the Gore states. In addition Obama created 9 new blue states: Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. Obama also got an additional electoral vote from Nebraska by winning the Second Congressional District of Nebraska (NE-2) which consists of the Omaha metropolitan area. This occurred because Nebraska gives two electoral votes for the statewide winner, and one electoral vote each for the winner of the Presidential vote within each of Nebraska’s 3 Congressional Districts. Maine also uses this same method. However, never before had either Maine or Nebraska split its electoral votes as a result of this “district method” of allocating electoral votes. That being said, Bush came close to winning Maine’s Second Congressional District in 2000 and in 1992 Ross Perot came close to winning one of Maine’s Congressional Districts. However, because Clinton narrowly won that Congressional District, Ross Perot was unable to get a single electoral vote despite winning 19% of the national popular vote. Because of what happened in Nebraska, Republicans in Nebraska plan to introduce legislation to restore the winner-take-all system of Presidential elections. Nebraska used the winner-take-all system prior to the 1992 Presidential election. Nebraska has a unicameral Upper House (known sometimes as the Nebraska Senate), all of whose members are officially non-partisan. Unofficially however, Republicans make up a majority of the Nebraska Senate and so the bill to return to winner-take-all could conceivably pass considering that Nebraska has a Republican governor. It is however too late to repeal the “district method” for this election so Obama will get an electoral vote from Nebraska.
I will not object too strongly if Republicans in Nebraska manage to repeal their “district method” because I favour the winner-take-all method for Presidential elections. There are many reasons for this but one of the big ones is that the “district method” opens up the Presidential race to gerrymandering and that needs to be avoided at all costs. So if Nebraska Republicans repeal Nebraska’s “district method” I am ok with that even though NE-2 could have broken a 269-269 electoral vote tie in favour of Obama if the election nationwide had been closer. Due to the electoral vote splitting that is to happen in Nebraska, the 1996 Presidential election will still be the last election when not a single state’s electoral votes were split. In 2000, and 2004, there were split electoral votes due to faithless electors. In 2000, a Gore elector for the District of Columbia refused to cast any electoral votes in protest of DC not having full congressional representation. In 2004, a Kerry elector for Minnesota cast his/her electoral vote for John Ewards (sic) for President and John Edwards for vice-president. This vote for “John Ewards” appears to have been a simple mistake. Even though the vote was for “John Ewards” it was certified as a vote for John Edwards. This faithless electoral vote was very unfortunate because it denied John Kerry a well-earned electoral vote from Minnesota. Due to NE-2 going for Obama, this Presidential election will be the first Presidential election since 1960 in which any state’s electoral votes are split (other than splits occurring due to faithless electors).
I feel that also I need to debunk claims that I have seen that Barack Obama is to the right of Stephen Harper. I’ve seen the argument made but I consider such an assertion hogwash. Yes Obama is to the right of Stephane Dion, Bob Rae, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and even Michael Ignatieff. But Obama is not to the right of Stephen Harper. To make my point I want to debunk the claims made in a recent Toronto Sun column written by columnist Lorrie Goldstein. Goldstein says:
“One of the most intellectually lazy and politically dishonest things the liberal media have done over the past few years is to constantly misrepresent Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a clone of outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush.
Lazy because the facts don't support it. Dishonest because those making the comparison know better.
On the bright side, they now have a lot of splaining (sic) to do, given the number of political views Democratic presidentelect (sic) Barack Obama and Harper share and it will be fun to watch them squirm.”
Goldstein goes on to make his points as to why this is his view. He says:
“For example, Harper, unlike Bush (and Obama), does not support the death penalty. Harper, unlike Bush, supports medicare and has never attempted to use the power of the state to restrict access to abortions.”
It is true that both Bush and Obama support the death penalty but I personally suspect Harper also supports the death penalty considering his government’s new policy of not opposing the death penalty given to Canadians sentenced in the United States. As for Goldstein’s claim that Harper supports medicare, I can tell you that Harper certainly did not support medicare when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition. The National Citizens Coalition opposes Canada’s medicare system, opposes the Canada Health Act and would like to see health care in Canada privatized. It was only after Harper became a party leader that he began publicly supporting the status quo for health care in Canada. As for Obama, Obama platform calls for significantly more government involvement in the United States health care system. It is also of note that Obama’s Presidential predecessor Bill Clinton has come to Canada and given speeches lauding Canada’s health care system and indicating that Canada’s nationalized health care system is the ideal. Considering that Obama’s end goal for health care is to make sure every American is covered, I think the argument can be made that Obama does support medicare. I’m sure Obama always has supported some form of medicare, unlike Harper whom we know at one time opposed the Canadian medicare system. As for abortion, Harper has refused to state his own view on abortion but over the years has clearly given more support to the pro-life side. Obama by contrast is openly and steadfastly pro-choice. This makes Obama the more “abortion choice” friendly politician.
Next Goldstein says:
“Harper's position on same-sex marriage, before the courts decided in its favour and which Harper has not overturned by invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, is the same as Obama's.
Both support civil unions for homosexuals but not same-sex marriages. That's also the position of all the major Democratic presidential contenders in recent years, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Both Harper and Obama support the war in Afghanistan.”
Now we’ve reached everyone’s favourite issue: same-sex marriage. First off let us note that of course Harper has never had the Parliamentary votes to overturn same-sex marriage using the notwithstanding clause even if he wanted to. At first glance it does appear that Harper and Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is the same: no same-sex marriage, civil unions. However there is a key difference. Obama does not favour laws that ban same-sex marriage whereas Harper does. Obama opposed the recent California referendum to ban same-sex marriage ; he endorsed the no side of the California referendum to ban same-sex marriage. Obama also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is very clearly evident that Obama does not support overturning same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction after a court has legalized same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction. This is in stark contrast to Harper. Harper wanted same-sex marriage in Canada overturned the moment it was legalized by a court in Ontario in 2003. After the 2003 Ontario court ruling, it became Harper’s policy that any court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario or any other province were to be overturned by the government. In the spring of 2005 when the same-sex marriage Bill was being debated, Harper led a Parliamentary campaign to defeat the same-sex marriage bill and to use government legislation to overturn the court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. This is in stark contrast to Obama, who opposes efforts to overturn court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. So it is very evident that Harper’s position on same-sex marriage is very much to the right of Obama’s position on same-sex marriage, in contrast to what Goldstein asserts.
As for the war in Afghanistan, both Harper and Obama support it. But this fact does not contribute to either the argument that Obama and Harper are both as right wing nor does it contribute to the argument that Obama is more right-wing than Harper.
Next Goldstein discusses the environment:
“Harper, from oil-rich Alberta and Obama, from coal-rich Illinois, have both softened their past opposition to the Kyoto accord and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for pragmatic reasons.”
I don’t believe that this statement accurately reflects Obama’s position on the environment. During this long Presidential campaign, Obama has been supportive of the Kyoto protocol and it really is hard to argue that Obama has ever been as hostile to efforts to fight climate change as Harper has been in the past.
Next Goldstein talks about taxes:
“Next, consider this example of the logical absurdities to which simplistic comparisons between Canadian and American politicians can lead.
Obama's major campaign promise was a $2.9-trillion tax cut to 95% of American taxpayers over the next decade, despite having inherited a $438-billion deficit from the Bush administration.
On the surface, that sounds a lot like former Conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris' 30% cut to the provincial income tax rate, despite having inherited an $11.2 billion deficit from the previous government of then NDP premier Bob Rae in 1995.
So, does that mean Obama is a Harris clone, a closet common sense revolutionary? Will the federal Liberals (and liberal media), who attacked Harris for cutting taxes without first balancing the budget, make the same criticism of Obama today? Of course not.”
I consider this comparison between Harris and Obama to be absurd because Harris’s tax cut program involved cutting taxes for all income levels (Harris did not implement enough tax cuts for the low income brackets of course), whereas Obama’s plan involves raising taxes for the wealthiest and cutting taxes for everyone else. Also of course Obama’s tax plan puts a greater emphasis on cutting taxes for lower income earners than Harris’s plan ever did. So therefore Goldstein’s comparing Harris’ tax plan to Obama’s tax plan is like comparing apples and oranges and in reality does not make help make Goldstein’s argument.
Next Goldstein makes another comment on taxes:
“Now factor in that cutting taxes in tough times (albeit with a different emphasis on who gets the most benefits) has been done by both Republican and Democratic administrations. So, is Obama a Ronald Reagan clone? See how silly this gets?”
Of course Obama is not a Ronald Reagan clone. Again, Reagan’s tax cuts did not involve raising income taxes for the highest income earners, unlike Obama’s tax plan. So Obama and Reagan cannot be compared based on taxes.
Finally Goldstein discusses the Iraq War:
“Finally, to address what the liberal media think is their best argument, yes, had Harper been PM in 2003 it is likely, despite his denials today, that we would have joined the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
But in the U.S. at the time, support for invading Iraq was a bipartisan position widely held by Republicans and Democrats -- and by prominent Liberals inside and outside of then PM Jean Chretien's government, including the current frontrunner for Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff.
For the liberal media to argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that Harper was wrong and Chretien right, is supportable. But to argue that makes Harper a Bush clone is absurd.”
Goldstein makes a good point about Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff’s position on Iraq really handicapped his 2006 bid to lead the Liberal party. But I disagree with Goldstein on his point about Iraq. Harper supported the Iraq war and would surely have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. This made his position the same as Bush’s. Why can’t we use these facts to make the “Harper is a Bush clone” argument? It is also very noteworthy that Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start, which clearly makes Obama to the left of Harper on Iraq.
To conclude, I feel that it is very fair to say that Barack Obama is to the left of Stephen Harper.
I will not object too strongly if Republicans in Nebraska manage to repeal their “district method” because I favour the winner-take-all method for Presidential elections. There are many reasons for this but one of the big ones is that the “district method” opens up the Presidential race to gerrymandering and that needs to be avoided at all costs. So if Nebraska Republicans repeal Nebraska’s “district method” I am ok with that even though NE-2 could have broken a 269-269 electoral vote tie in favour of Obama if the election nationwide had been closer. Due to the electoral vote splitting that is to happen in Nebraska, the 1996 Presidential election will still be the last election when not a single state’s electoral votes were split. In 2000, and 2004, there were split electoral votes due to faithless electors. In 2000, a Gore elector for the District of Columbia refused to cast any electoral votes in protest of DC not having full congressional representation. In 2004, a Kerry elector for Minnesota cast his/her electoral vote for John Ewards (sic) for President and John Edwards for vice-president. This vote for “John Ewards” appears to have been a simple mistake. Even though the vote was for “John Ewards” it was certified as a vote for John Edwards. This faithless electoral vote was very unfortunate because it denied John Kerry a well-earned electoral vote from Minnesota. Due to NE-2 going for Obama, this Presidential election will be the first Presidential election since 1960 in which any state’s electoral votes are split (other than splits occurring due to faithless electors).
I feel that also I need to debunk claims that I have seen that Barack Obama is to the right of Stephen Harper. I’ve seen the argument made but I consider such an assertion hogwash. Yes Obama is to the right of Stephane Dion, Bob Rae, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and even Michael Ignatieff. But Obama is not to the right of Stephen Harper. To make my point I want to debunk the claims made in a recent Toronto Sun column written by columnist Lorrie Goldstein. Goldstein says:
“One of the most intellectually lazy and politically dishonest things the liberal media have done over the past few years is to constantly misrepresent Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a clone of outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush.
Lazy because the facts don't support it. Dishonest because those making the comparison know better.
On the bright side, they now have a lot of splaining (sic) to do, given the number of political views Democratic presidentelect (sic) Barack Obama and Harper share and it will be fun to watch them squirm.”
Goldstein goes on to make his points as to why this is his view. He says:
“For example, Harper, unlike Bush (and Obama), does not support the death penalty. Harper, unlike Bush, supports medicare and has never attempted to use the power of the state to restrict access to abortions.”
It is true that both Bush and Obama support the death penalty but I personally suspect Harper also supports the death penalty considering his government’s new policy of not opposing the death penalty given to Canadians sentenced in the United States. As for Goldstein’s claim that Harper supports medicare, I can tell you that Harper certainly did not support medicare when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition. The National Citizens Coalition opposes Canada’s medicare system, opposes the Canada Health Act and would like to see health care in Canada privatized. It was only after Harper became a party leader that he began publicly supporting the status quo for health care in Canada. As for Obama, Obama platform calls for significantly more government involvement in the United States health care system. It is also of note that Obama’s Presidential predecessor Bill Clinton has come to Canada and given speeches lauding Canada’s health care system and indicating that Canada’s nationalized health care system is the ideal. Considering that Obama’s end goal for health care is to make sure every American is covered, I think the argument can be made that Obama does support medicare. I’m sure Obama always has supported some form of medicare, unlike Harper whom we know at one time opposed the Canadian medicare system. As for abortion, Harper has refused to state his own view on abortion but over the years has clearly given more support to the pro-life side. Obama by contrast is openly and steadfastly pro-choice. This makes Obama the more “abortion choice” friendly politician.
Next Goldstein says:
“Harper's position on same-sex marriage, before the courts decided in its favour and which Harper has not overturned by invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, is the same as Obama's.
Both support civil unions for homosexuals but not same-sex marriages. That's also the position of all the major Democratic presidential contenders in recent years, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Both Harper and Obama support the war in Afghanistan.”
Now we’ve reached everyone’s favourite issue: same-sex marriage. First off let us note that of course Harper has never had the Parliamentary votes to overturn same-sex marriage using the notwithstanding clause even if he wanted to. At first glance it does appear that Harper and Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is the same: no same-sex marriage, civil unions. However there is a key difference. Obama does not favour laws that ban same-sex marriage whereas Harper does. Obama opposed the recent California referendum to ban same-sex marriage ; he endorsed the no side of the California referendum to ban same-sex marriage. Obama also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is very clearly evident that Obama does not support overturning same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction after a court has legalized same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction. This is in stark contrast to Harper. Harper wanted same-sex marriage in Canada overturned the moment it was legalized by a court in Ontario in 2003. After the 2003 Ontario court ruling, it became Harper’s policy that any court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario or any other province were to be overturned by the government. In the spring of 2005 when the same-sex marriage Bill was being debated, Harper led a Parliamentary campaign to defeat the same-sex marriage bill and to use government legislation to overturn the court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. This is in stark contrast to Obama, who opposes efforts to overturn court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. So it is very evident that Harper’s position on same-sex marriage is very much to the right of Obama’s position on same-sex marriage, in contrast to what Goldstein asserts.
As for the war in Afghanistan, both Harper and Obama support it. But this fact does not contribute to either the argument that Obama and Harper are both as right wing nor does it contribute to the argument that Obama is more right-wing than Harper.
Next Goldstein discusses the environment:
“Harper, from oil-rich Alberta and Obama, from coal-rich Illinois, have both softened their past opposition to the Kyoto accord and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for pragmatic reasons.”
I don’t believe that this statement accurately reflects Obama’s position on the environment. During this long Presidential campaign, Obama has been supportive of the Kyoto protocol and it really is hard to argue that Obama has ever been as hostile to efforts to fight climate change as Harper has been in the past.
Next Goldstein talks about taxes:
“Next, consider this example of the logical absurdities to which simplistic comparisons between Canadian and American politicians can lead.
Obama's major campaign promise was a $2.9-trillion tax cut to 95% of American taxpayers over the next decade, despite having inherited a $438-billion deficit from the Bush administration.
On the surface, that sounds a lot like former Conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris' 30% cut to the provincial income tax rate, despite having inherited an $11.2 billion deficit from the previous government of then NDP premier Bob Rae in 1995.
So, does that mean Obama is a Harris clone, a closet common sense revolutionary? Will the federal Liberals (and liberal media), who attacked Harris for cutting taxes without first balancing the budget, make the same criticism of Obama today? Of course not.”
I consider this comparison between Harris and Obama to be absurd because Harris’s tax cut program involved cutting taxes for all income levels (Harris did not implement enough tax cuts for the low income brackets of course), whereas Obama’s plan involves raising taxes for the wealthiest and cutting taxes for everyone else. Also of course Obama’s tax plan puts a greater emphasis on cutting taxes for lower income earners than Harris’s plan ever did. So therefore Goldstein’s comparing Harris’ tax plan to Obama’s tax plan is like comparing apples and oranges and in reality does not make help make Goldstein’s argument.
Next Goldstein makes another comment on taxes:
“Now factor in that cutting taxes in tough times (albeit with a different emphasis on who gets the most benefits) has been done by both Republican and Democratic administrations. So, is Obama a Ronald Reagan clone? See how silly this gets?”
Of course Obama is not a Ronald Reagan clone. Again, Reagan’s tax cuts did not involve raising income taxes for the highest income earners, unlike Obama’s tax plan. So Obama and Reagan cannot be compared based on taxes.
Finally Goldstein discusses the Iraq War:
“Finally, to address what the liberal media think is their best argument, yes, had Harper been PM in 2003 it is likely, despite his denials today, that we would have joined the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
But in the U.S. at the time, support for invading Iraq was a bipartisan position widely held by Republicans and Democrats -- and by prominent Liberals inside and outside of then PM Jean Chretien's government, including the current frontrunner for Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff.
For the liberal media to argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that Harper was wrong and Chretien right, is supportable. But to argue that makes Harper a Bush clone is absurd.”
Goldstein makes a good point about Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff’s position on Iraq really handicapped his 2006 bid to lead the Liberal party. But I disagree with Goldstein on his point about Iraq. Harper supported the Iraq war and would surely have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. This made his position the same as Bush’s. Why can’t we use these facts to make the “Harper is a Bush clone” argument? It is also very noteworthy that Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start, which clearly makes Obama to the left of Harper on Iraq.
To conclude, I feel that it is very fair to say that Barack Obama is to the left of Stephen Harper.
Monday, August 13, 2007
A website on gay rights
Gay rights issues have been swirling in my head again. Personally I am glad that I am pro-gay marriage. I couldn’t live with myself if I were anti-gay marriage. I have come across a site created and maintained by Bill Myers from Ohio. It is called GAY RIGHTS INFO. Bill cares passionately about gay rights believes strongly in the expansion of gay rights. So he has compiled voting records of politicians in the US and around the world on gay rights issues. He also gives the status of gay rights in all US states and various other countries including Canada. Bill’s site includes a page that gives a table of voting records for all MPs in the current Canadian House of Commons, those from the 38th House of Commons, and most of those who were in the 37th House of Commons. The reason I say “most” is because the table does not include MPs like Brian Tobin who resigned mid-way through the 37th House of Commons and whose ridings were filled in a by-election. It DOES, however, include MPs such as Jean Chrétien who resigned near the end of the 37th House of Commons and whose seats were vacant at dissolution. Here is a link to the table: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canhoc.html
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)